list_assetsList and filter chart or table assets by type, status, or title substring. Paginated results show summary data, with full bodies available via get_asset.
Filterable list; rows elide config/data. Use get_asset for full bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | Title substring | |
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Read-only and idempotent behavior are already declared by annotations, and the description adds useful disclosure that returned rows are elided and full content requires get_asset. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences carry both the core behavior and the routing to get_asset, with the list behavior front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-required-parameter list tool with read-only and idempotent annotations, the description is largely sufficient: filtering is noted, elision is disclosed, and the full-body alternative is named. The lack of an output schema makes a bit more return-format detail desirable, but the schema and annotations cover the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'search' is described), so the description needed to compensate for type, status, limit, and offset. 'Filterable list' is the only parameter-relevant guidance and it does not explain which fields filter or how the enum behaves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a filterable list operation and distinguishes it from get_asset by noting that rows elide config/data. However, it relies on the tool name and title for the explicit resource ('assets'), so it is clear but slightly less self-contained than a fully specified statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear routing guidance: use this tool for a filtered list summary and get_asset when full bodies are needed. It does not spell out when to prefer other list siblings (e.g., list_asset_types, list_brands), so it stops short of fully explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.